Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for
the good of its victims may be the most
oppressive.

As Londoners take to defending their own lives, property and communities, it seems the state is failing in its first duty: to defend life, liberty and property. A good number of my constituents have written — dismayed by the shameful, reckless behaviour they have seen on TV — demanding that tougher action be taken with rioters.

My understanding of the law (and I am not a lawyer) is that “A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large.” I also understand that defendants at trial cannot determine if the force they used was reasonable, since of course they will always think it was.

That raises at least two important questions:

• What would be a reasonable use of force by a property owner in defence of their property or their neighbours’, in a riot?
• In a riot, what constitutes reasonable force by the police in the prevention of crime?

It seems little has been said about the former and that there is too much caution about the latter. To use high-pressure hoses and rubber bullets is a serious decision, but I am quite certain it is not one which requires the consent of rioters…

We are far from bringing back the Riot Act, but I hope tomorrow in Parliament we establish that the state’s duty is to protect the law-abiding and their property first and foremost and that the police do not require the consent of rioters before acting with reasonable force.

A couple of weeks back, I visited a prison to see the Sycamore Tree Prison Fellowship in action, delivering victim awareness and restorative justice. I was able to see prisoners take clear responsibility for their actions and the hurt and harm caused to victims. It was moving to see men (in this case) whose lives have been blighted by their own crime recognise their opportunities for individual change and restoration.

I understand the programme has significant benefits in reducing reoffending…

I spent this morning in the public gallery of one of Wycombe’s Magistrates’ courts. What I saw could have been a study for the Centre for Social Justice.

What I witnessed today included the following cases (I dispense with the details for obvious reasons):

• Casual theft by a man with a methadone problem.
• Taking a vehicle without consent.
• Antisocial behaviour by a person with a history of drug and alcohol abuse, currently trying to turn their life around through work and treatment.
• Theft of a phone.
• Sending grossly offensive text messages — and they really were foul — by a young man to the mother of his 5-month-old child over a custody disagreement.
• Speeding to escape an abusive husband.

In just three hours, I saw the consequences of family breakdown, educational failure, worklessness, drugs and debt. The court saw a constant stream of human tragedy.

I imagine it will do so every day this week, as will every other in the land.

What next for the young father who is thrashing around, not knowing how to be a good dad, earning just £900 a month? What next for the person on methadone, stealing to cover a gap in benefit payments? What next in the heart-rending case of the young person aged 22 years, with two simple jobs, going through treatment for alcoholism, who narrowly escaped prison today?

Enter the Centre for Social Justice, which promotes practical, grass-roots solutions to social problems where the state may have failed. Of particular relevance is this recent speech by Rt Hon Iain Duncan Smith MP:

While crime – particularly the fear of crime – impacts us all, it is most acute in our poorest areas. The middle classes fear crime but the most burgled, assaulted, raped and the most impacted by anti-social behaviour are the people who live on these estates.

These communities, typically dominated by social housing, are characterised by several common themes:

• Entrenched breakdown of the family.
• Generational worklessness.
• Poor education.
• Widespread addiction to drugs and alcohol.
• Severe personal debt.
• And violent street gangs.

People in such areas are five times more likely to be a victim of robbery than people in our wealthiest areas. They are twice as likely to be victims of violence, and other common crimes.

They are also five times more likely than their wealthier counterparts to perceive high levels of anti-social behaviour.

And it is from these communities that many offenders also originate.

The speech outlined an agenda for reform, covering:

• Courts and sentencing
• Police reform
• Prison reform

The state is failing those most in need and we are all paying the price: I certainly do not believe the costs recovered from these people of meagre means covered the facility, the magistrates, the clerk to the court, the solicitors, the probation officer, the usher, the security staff and the administrators. This is not even to begin to count the social and material loss we all suffer from the brokenness in these lives, or the cost to come.

Something must be done to stem this river of misery, and it is not the same old top-down stuff.

You can find the full report here.

The Court of Appeal has ruled that a criminal trial can take place at Crown Court without a jury for the first time in England and Wales.

The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, made legal history by agreeing to allow the trial to be heard by a judge alone.

It is the first time the power has been used since it came into force in 2007.

…

Lord Judge described trial by jury as a “hallowed principle” of British justice, but said the Criminal Justice Act 2003 did allow a trial to he heard by a judge alone in certain circumstances.

…

But Liberty director of policy Isabella Sankey said: “This is a dangerous precedent.

“The right to jury trial isn’t just a hallowed principle but a practice that ensures that one class of people don’t sit in judgement over another and the public have confidence in an open and representative justice system.

“What signal do we send to witnesses if the police can’t even protect juries?”

via BBC NEWS | UK | First trial without jury approved.

Updated

Tonight, I heard some remarkable and shocking accounts of knife and gun crime in Britain and what is to be done about it.

I’ll not repeat the accounts of the crimes themselves: some are too grotesque to publish here. And that is part of the problem. Some young people in some sections of society are today so accustomed to crime and violence that it is difficult to conceive that tougher sentences will deter them. We were told that the death penalty would hold little fear for those who do not expect to live past their early twenties.

It emerged that some young people not only “hate the system” but also that they simply do not care what the law says. By the account of the inspiring young people present at the meeting, tougher sentences for carrying a knife would most likely strengthen those people’s determination to carry one in their rebellion against the law.

Of course we must deploy tough criminal justice against this problem, but we have reached a point where, if we want to stop this cycle of tragedy, we must recognize that gun and knife crime is the fruit of a societal problem and ask what we can do about it.
Read more